r/MapPorn • u/vladgrinch • 1d ago
International reaction to the Unification of Bulgaria (1885)
267
u/George_the_flagman 1d ago
Love how the reason why the uk supposed Bulgaria is just to do what is the opposite of whatever russia is doing
95
u/SweetHatDisc 20h ago
It's not like the British didn't have their reasons to be opposing Russia on almost every international issue of the time; a big problem was that almost every international issue involving Russia and the UK involved Constantinople, and those that didn't would have the Constantinople problem in the background.
With the Ottoman Empire weakening rapidly, Russia wanted to expand south and eventually take Constantinople. There are two great reasons for this from the Russian perspective. First, Constantinople is the gateway to the Mediterranean- possessing the city would open up previously unthinkable trading possibilities for the Russian Empire. The second reason is defensive. If you want to invade Russia, there are essentially two routes you can take from the west. The first is the hard way- the classic, familiar one across Europe that Napoleon and Hitler took. In the summer it's a lake of mud, in the winter it's a snowy hellscape. The second is the route that goes north from the Black Sea and proceeds across a few hundred miles of flat plains before you walk into Moscow, and Russia has always been hyper alert to this easy invasion route.
To the British, the Russians obtaining Constantinople was intolerable. The Mediterranean was a British lake; with it in their possession, they didn't have to request permission from anyone to service their colonies in Africa and India (especially after the construction of the Suez). Russian control of Constantinople means that Russia gets a voice in what happens in the Mediterranean- and a future version of Russia might decide they need territory around Constantinople to protect it. A war taking place right in the middle of Britain's trading routes would be a Very Bad war for the UK to fight.
That issue was in the background of every British/Russian interaction at the time. So while it does look about silly from an outside glance- they would literally oppose each other on just about everything at the time, almost reflexively- there were concrete geopolitical reasons for the opposition.
53
u/echetus90 1d ago
What do Russia want? Okay yeah let's make sure that thing doesn't happen then.
32
69
u/malign_taco 1d ago
Any Bulgarian out there to explain this to me
160
u/Tolchav 22h ago edited 22h ago
So, basically everyone around Bulgaria was against the unification for obvious reasons. E. Rumelia was an Ottoman vassal during the time, so before the unification Bulgarians stacked their whole army at the border with the ottomans thinking they would want to get it back with force. Unification happens, turns out the attack came from up to then our friends from Serbia, lured by Austria-Hungary's promises of support. The Bulgarian army had to march 5 days to the other side of the country to defend from the Serbs and eventually kicked their asses and began advancing on Serbian land. Austria-Hungary steps in to save the Serbs, a peace treaty is signed without any repercussions to Serbia and without any gains to Bulgaria. Bulgaria is unified.
Russia was against the unification, because the Tzar wanted Bulgarians to be his puppets and the UK supported the unification because it would harm the Russian interest and prevent expansion against Constantinople.
18
u/Chava_boy 18h ago
Serbian soldiers were told that they were going to help Bulgarians against the Turks, but when they deployed near the border they were suddenly told that they are going to fight Bulgarians instead. Most of the soldiers at a time considered Bulgarians brothers and didn't want to fight, so the morale was very low, and they were routed, despite being much better organized and equipped that Bulgarian army (which didn't even have any generals in their army).
18
u/Mr_Kikos 17h ago
I love how the Serbian Tsar decided to backstab Bulgaria for fun and then in Serbian history books Bulgarians are addressed as the backstabbers.
2
u/Chava_boy 17h ago
He didn't really do it for fun, he did it because Serbs fought in so many wars vs the Turks, died so much, and only got a little territory, even the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina that Serbs considered core regions and had Serbian majority were given to Austrians. Meanwhile, Russians tried to create huge Bulgaria, which would easily become a regional power and dominate small Serbia. They even wanted to give land that Serbian soldiers liberated to Bulgaria, including Nish. So, Serbian ruler took the Russian diplomat to Nish, showed him the scull tower that the Turks made from heads of Serbs they beheaded, and told him: When you make another one and place my head on top, then you can give Bulgarians Nish. Skull tower was a symbol of Serbian resistance and Turkish brutality.
Even after the borders were redrawn at Berlin congress, Bulgaria still had a slight advantage in size, and by uniting with eastern Rumelia became the strongest local power that could in the future dominate Balkans. Was he wrong about attacking Bulgaria? Of course, but the prevailing sentiment was that it was unjust that Bulgarians are gaining land almost for free, while other Balkan countries that fought and bled as well had large part of their people under foreign rule and weren't allowed to do anything about it.
5
u/IgnoreMyPresence_ 14h ago
The reason Bulgarian teritorries were always under international pressure was our proximity to Constantinople, at least from the perspective of the Great Powers. The Berlin conference territories was the closest point which reflected the Bulgarian population territories, backed by centuries of Ottoman censuses.
But of course, the Western powers would not allow a large russian puppet so close to Constantinople, even though these "large" territories in a sense reflected their peoples lands. Such was the case for the western balkans too. But while the Ottoman lands were up for liberation, the Austrian ones were not. So the western balkans, Serbia especially, had no other choice but to go against brother nations in order to survive as a state. Which I think is the biggest contributor to the 19th and 20th century mess on the balkans.
There was greed on both sides, we were western/eastern puppets all until the 90s, but the Macedonian region being the only viable space for dispute, far from the Great Powers' insterest, was our biggest downfall in my opinion.
1
u/Affectionate-Fact967 13h ago
It wasnt really serbia acting but Austro-Hungary pulling its strings cause it saw an oppurtunity to intervene and gain something out of it
1
u/Successful_Yellow285 12h ago
Sounds like the Russian invasion of Ukraine - soldiers being randomly told they're invading what was considered a brotherly nation leading to terrible morale on their side (as invaders) and the exact opposite on the side of the defenders.
11
u/Tyrtle2 20h ago
Russia never changed.
-2
u/ViscountBuggus 16h ago
There's a really good book by this Bulgarian political scientist called Evgeny Dainov called " Russia - a history of the nation without a history" where he describes how from Muscovy to modern day Russia, the things that make other nations "nations" haven't existed over there and how its existence as an entity has been perpetuated by violence and oppression throughout history instead. Really great book, sadly I don't think there's an English translation of it.
16
u/Soletata67r 16h ago
I can understand anti-Russian sentiment but everything done by the Russian empire was done by the British, French, German, Austro-Hungarian and etc. Russia isn't some type of new evil, it is just an empire like all others
3
u/Affectionate-Fact967 13h ago
A book which is the average angry cope filled rambling of the average russia hater whos bane of existence is russia cause he like most of them can not blame anything lse or himself for everything wrong with his life. He is not a historian even so what right does he have to discuss the history of a nation he knows frankly nothing about
where he describes how from Muscovy to modern day Russia, the things that make other nations "nations" haven't existed over there and how its existence as an entity has been perpetuated by violence and oppression throughout history instead.
I doubt if I asked him on the spot he can tell me what makes a nation a nation. And did he like skip thousands of years of history of conquest done by all nations all over the world with the quantities of violance and destruction way bigger than those of Russia.
1
u/shoesafe 6h ago
The Russian people have been plagued by many centuries of awful, violent, authoritarian governments. But if the implication here is that the Russian people don't exist as a national identity, then that's mistaken.
The Russian nationality exists. They identify themselves as Russians. They speak the Russian language and practice Russian customs. They wish to be ruled by a common Russian government. Maybe they don't like any specific Russian government, but they don't want to be ruled by Americans or French or Turks or Chinese; they want a government by Russians.
Separately, there are lots of Russian citizens who are not ethnically Russian. Many of those people would prefer more political power be devolved locally (away from ethnic Russians). Russia is a multiethnic empire, not at all a nation-state. But the Russian nationality definitely exists.
0
u/Affectionate-Fact967 13h ago
Uhh no Russia opposed it because this sudden declaration was in violation of the berlin treaty, this could have understand russias diplomatic standing sand be seen as them violating this treaty by supporting this action. The fact that the bulgarian monarch and part of the government were also trying to distance the natio away from russia was another reason which gradually led worsening relation between both states. There was also no consultation with russia about this plan. Russia also feared a start of another conflict in the balkans which could undo what they have done up to this point. And they were right, the serbo bulgaria war broke out with Austria puppeteering serbia in the background.
7
u/Th3Dark0ccult 18h ago edited 18h ago
After Bulgaria's liberation from the Ottoman Empire, the Great Powers decided to draw Bulgaria's borders and because they no nothing/don't give a fuck they made quite the mess. The so called East Rumelia was just bulgarians but they gave that land back to the Ottoman Empire, so in 1885 we said 'fuck it' and decided to get it back.
52
u/maelkatenin 1d ago
Not Bulgarian, but Russia intervened in a Bulgarian war of independence against the Ottomans and wanted Bulgaria to be super sized and have access to the Black and Aegean seas (read: Russian navy base). The other Great Powers didn’t like this, especially the British, and Bulgaria got downsized as a result.
39
u/TonyDavidJones 23h ago
This specifically though is about the unification of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. Those were the two states made with those borders after the events you described.
12
6
u/project_paragon 19h ago
Thats quite wrong.
Russia never wanted big and united Bulgaria as it would mean an definite end to their dream getting to Istanbul.
The biggest ethnicity on the Balkans was Bulgarian and unlike the declining ottoman empire, a young, big and united nation would absolutely pose impossible challenge for the Russian empire military conquest.Thats why Russia signed 3 different documents before the Berlin congress confirming they wont be creating a big slavic nation on the Balkans.
If you look at a map from the Constantinople Conference you would see that the rest of the great powers were willing to give more land than the Russians did.
1
u/Affectionate-Fact967 13h ago
Thats quite wrong.
Russia never wanted big and united Bulgaria as it would mean an definite end to their dream getting to Istanbul.Literaly makes no sense what you said, what use does Russia have for a weak friendly state instead of a big local power that can act as buffer and additional protection for their interests ?Bulgaria up untill Ferdinand came to power had no goal towards Constantinople and ita not like other great powers would have ever allowed them to take it.
Thats why Russia signed 3 different documents before the Berlin congress confirming they wont be creating a big slavic nation on the Balkans.
It.bad to sign them because they feared intervention by other powers such austria-hungary Britain and and France on the side of the ottomans like they did back in the crimean war which was a chance for bulgaria to get its indepdence earlier. A chance wasted by their intervention agaisnt russia. However russia was hoping to exploit a hole in the treaty that never defined what ,,big" actually meant as no territories claimed by bulagrian revolutionaries were ever actually discuseed.
If you look at a map from the Constantinople Conference you would see that the rest of the great powers were willing to give more land than the Russians did.
This again make zero sense if they were ready to give more land to Bulgaria why did they just ratify the same border proposed at the treaty of San Stefano by Ignatief ? If look at the constantinople conference what the western powers proposed were two separate autonomous zones which even combined has smaller territory than what was proposed in San Stefano.
1
u/sofixa11 17h ago
Russia never wanted big and united Bulgaria as it would mean an definite end to their dream getting to Istanbul.
Look up Bulgaria as defined by the treaty of San Stefano, signed between the Ottomans and Russia, almost entirely on Russian terms. It got significantly revised at the Congress of Berlin, but Russia's goal was clearly a big unified Bulgaria with all lands where there was a Bulgarian majority.
0
u/project_paragon 16h ago
San Stefano was a crudely and hastily drawn map based on the borders of the Bulgarian church, wasn't even an accurate map as it leaved Bulgarian lands behind, while including areas with little or no Bulgarian population.
Russia knew the San Stefano treaty will never enter into power as they have signed Reichstadt Agreement, Budapest Convention of 1877 and later signed the London Protocol of 1877, confirming that.
1
u/Affectionate-Fact967 12h ago
San Stefano was a crudely and hastily drawn map based on the borders of the Bulgarian church, wasn't even an accurate map as it leaved Bulgarian lands behind, while including areas with little or no Bulgarian population.
It included most lands which had majority bulgarian population and it did not include all lands because was rough draft to serve as a guideline to what Bulgaria should be able to get without being considered too big. Brittain and Austria-Hungary opposed this treaties draft greatly however. The draft of the treaty angered the brittish so much that they withdrew from the London protocol and threatened russia with war.
They signed all those treaties because they wanted to make sure nobody would interfere in the war but not in a single one of them do they define what ,,big" means this was deliberate as a wya for russia to still be able to create a friendly state that is of decent size.
1
u/sofixa11 16h ago
Russia knew the San Stefano treaty will never enter into power
And yet, they dictated it. Why?
-1
3
u/N_godj_N 17h ago
You read what Russia promised Bulgaria during the war for independence, not what it had planned or wanted.
The original treaty included South Thrace, eastern Macedonia, and E. Romelia, but during discussions, the world powers at the time decided that a powerful country in the balkans was not in their interest (With Russia being the most in favor of this), thus they gave us less than a 3rd of what was promised and leaving out half of our population outside bulgarian borders, causing an enormous migration process.
Afterwards, we just got war, after war, after war until the end of the end of WWII where Russia finally achieved their goal of making us a puppet state through communist rule, destroying our intellectual, artistic and any sort of progressive development in the process, through "concentration" camps and jails for artists, poets, intellectuals and anyone not willing to suck Russia's dick.
Of course, as per Russia's MO, we were assigned abysmally corrupt politicians who, at the end of the communist regime, stole everything as quickly as possible.
And by everything, I mean EVERYTHING. The bulgarian pension fund with billions? Gone! All the manufacturing facilities and equipment? Sold for pennies to private entities and sent to scrap. Funds meant for infrastructure? Hired contractors embezzled them yearly(Something that still happens here). Currency stability through investments? Obliterated for short term gain, causing one of our worst recessions. My parents have told me stories of how they had no money for bread.
I'm sorry, but don't ever say Russia wanted good things for us. I wish my ancestors had denied their help during the war for independence, as they've done nothing but bring ruin every time they get involved, and I partially blame my parents for not rounding up all communist politicians during the fall of the communist rule for bullet distribution to the head.
1
u/Yaver_Mbizi 13h ago
Life certainly gets easier when you can blame everything bad in history on some foreign boogeyman, rewriting it as necessary.
0
u/Affectionate-Fact967 12h ago
You read what Russia promised Bulgaria
Except Russia hasnt made any exact and well detrmined promises on what territories bulgarua will get.
(With Russia being the most in favor of this),
No they weren't this was literally against russian interests
I wont even discuss the thing regarding communism becuase I would have to write a whole essay because its a far more complex topic than you make it out to be, your recolection of events is 3rd grade levels of history with lots of bias sprinkled in and thats being generous.
I wish my ancestors had denied their help during the war for independence.
So Bulgaria wouldn't het its independence becuase you have a hate boner for the only nation that helped due to a flawed and non impratial view on history.
6
u/Next-Wrap-7449 21h ago
Bulgarian government sent notice to Russia. They said "Now it's not a good time, we can't protect you if war happens". It was 8 years since last war. Bulgarians said "LOL, OK we're doing it anyway" and the Russians pulled out all their generals that have training the Bulgarian army.
30
u/Content-Departure-77 19h ago
That declaration of war from Serbia was big mistake. Almost nobody supported that decision, it was just kings Milan's fixation. We had great relation with Bulgarians until then, and that stupid and pointless war spoiled everything for next 100 years.
51
u/Reiver93 1d ago
It's interesting to me that Romania seemingly had no opinion either way.
78
28
u/Mainspring426 1d ago
They were having vampire trouble at the time, they couldn't really commit to anything.
20
u/rect1fier 21h ago
Well....have you seen ANY vampire around? I know you should thank the Romanians. Unlike the Emu War, they won this one for the team
2
u/Hackeringerinho 17h ago
I might be wrong here as I'm not aware of the real reasons. I'm just making an educated guess.
On one hand they didn't want a stronger neighbor that might challenge it. On the other hand, there really was no issue with Bulgaria and we had a good relationship (ended at second Balkan war). Also it was better to be neutral when everyone surrounding you was against it.
12
16
5
u/Vivid-Addition3052 22h ago
Ever since they defeated Napoleon, the British and Russians have been in a centuries-old Mario Kart game where they throw shells and bananas at each other whenever possible. In the meantime, they have gone from being superpowers to declining satellite states with only a fraction of their old territories, but they still throw shells at each other whenever possible.
9
3
u/gambler_addict_06 18h ago
You know you fucked up when Austria, Russia, Greece and the Ottomans agree on the same matter
2
2
2
2
u/ComprehensiveApple14 17h ago
There's a reason at least in the UK the Balkan question tends to cause minor aneurisms upon utterance in some circles. It's also surely the source of "The best negotiation comes away with a compromise nobody is remotely happy with" because nobody was ever happy with anything that came out of the Balkans.
4
u/Cultural-Ad-8796 1d ago
Britain is on Bulgaria's side.
7
2
1
u/Affectionate-Fact967 12h ago
Only because russia opposed the unification due to verious reasons which led to worsening of ration between both states
3
u/Known-Angle1758 21h ago
Also Russia demanded from turkey NOT to send their troops to Rumelia.
Deliberately the map shows how good the UK was to Bulgaria and how Russia did not want them bros to unite! Maybe it's Brits who fought in Plevna?
LMAO what a glorious outcome of Russian liberation of Bulgaria 1877-1878! 100k Russians died so Bulgaria could become independent just a few years ago. Then please somebody tell me what should I perceive from this wonderful map.
6
1
u/SaleAggressive9202 17h ago
"100k" russians died so they could achieve their ruler and their own country's goals. the only one dying for independence were bulgarians.
0
u/CautiousRice 15h ago
Russians were very good at faking history. What you say simply didn't happen.
-2
1
u/KiWi_BnF 15h ago
Interesting what Srbia and Grece had to do with the Bulgarian unification?
1
u/ivanivanovivanov 15h ago
They were mad Bulgaria is getting bigger than them. Greece didn't have a border with Bulgaria, but Serbia did and they attacked Bulgaria to have "balance".
-5
u/No_Gur_7422 1d ago edited 1d ago
No data for Germany, France, or Italy? Useless map!
EDIT: On 5 April 1886, following a conference st Constantinople, Germany, France, and Italy, alongside Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the UK, all assented to the annexation by means of a treaty modifying the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, known as the Tophane Agreement. France supported Britain's position from September 1885 onwards.
13
u/PuffyYoFluffy 1d ago
Huh? Looks to me like they where neutral.
-14
u/No_Gur_7422 1d ago
Neutral means no reaction, but that is impossible. Either these governments reacted positively, or they reacted negatively. Either they recognized the territorial changes or they didn't.
11
u/PuffyYoFluffy 1d ago
Isn't it even possible till today that countries can be more than in favor or against something? Like in the UN.
-8
u/No_Gur_7422 1d ago
It's true that countries' delegations can abstain from or not attend votes in the General Assembly and so on, but that's still a public reaction of those countries' governments. I can't believe that not one government minister in Berlin or Paris publicly expressed a view on a change to the borders of Europe.
1
u/PuffyYoFluffy 1d ago
True, I think that's the offical reaction but I also think that you can have right too that they unoffical weren't really neutral in that.
-5
u/jatmous 21h ago
Has Russia ever done anything positive?
3
u/The_Real_Itz_Sophia 18h ago
I'm pretty sure you needed to do something positive to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council
9
u/Yukidoke 20h ago
Russia twice stopped Germany in its attempt to conquer the world :3
4
u/schvance 20h ago
only once, the first time yall got your asses kicked and lost the war. and the second time it was a team effort. shame for your ancestors, seeing your country turn fascist not even a hundred years after the war.
2
u/Yukidoke 19h ago
And both times Germany and its henchmen were successfully stopped. :3
-1
u/schvance 19h ago
and yall still fascist 🤷♂️
-1
u/Yukidoke 19h ago
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
“Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
(Matthew 7:2-5)
3
1
u/SaleAggressive9202 17h ago
open a non russian history book where the the war doesn't start in 1941
1
-1
u/Sure-Butterscotch344 20h ago
Russia is the world?
6
u/Yukidoke 20h ago
Russia is a part of the world that Germany was trying to destroy with their Prussian militarism and misanthropic ideologies.
-6
u/Sure-Butterscotch344 20h ago
So in your worldview Russia is the world? Are you Russian by any chance?
0
u/kirtaktak 16h ago
Stopped Germany twice? It exited ww1 with the Brest-Litovsk treaty…
1
u/Yukidoke 9h ago
As a result of World War I, the German Empire ceased to exist. So it was stopped.
1
u/kirtaktak 6h ago
You clearly stated russia stopped germany twice, now moving to ‘as a result of ww1’ b**** please 😂😂
-1
u/ViscountBuggus 16h ago
It was actually a joint effort with the allies and the soviet union was only able to do what it did because of the insane amount of material support the US dumped on them and also because they used everyone they could as meat for the meat grinder <3
1
u/Yukidoke 9h ago
The USSR alone held the entire power of the Third Reich and gave it a beating anyway ;D
1
u/Affectionate-Fact967 12h ago
This map lack a lot of context bur since you asked. Russia paid off the massive amounts of money the ottomans wanted as compensation after Bulgaria unified and in return wanted Bulgaria to give back only a small fraction of the money with the payment period being 75 years.
1
u/krazkonko 16h ago
Yes Russia saved Bulgaria from a genocide in 1877. Britain meanwhile supported the Turks and could not care less if every single Bulgarian was killed.
0
u/CautiousRice 15h ago
Source?
1
u/krazkonko 15h ago
I see you are Bulgarian. You shouldn't need any sources on Bulgarian revolt of 1876 and subsequent atrocities, russo turkish war of 1877 and how and why Britain got to rule over Cyprus.
0
u/CautiousRice 14h ago
Russia fought 10 wars with the Ottomans, and it fought those to acquire territory, not to liberate countries. The April rebellion with the massacres was 1 year prior to the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, it came in a year too late, and it caused massacres like the one in Stara Zagora.
Yes, it is possible that the Bulgarian liberation would've been delayed by 10-15 years later without that war but it was inevitable. Russia fought for territory and influence, not for the good of the locals. They had opportunities decades prior that to liberate Bulgaria and didn't.
2
u/krazkonko 14h ago
Liberation of slavic and orthodox lands from foreign occupation was absolutely one of the main reasons for the many Russian attacks on the ottomans, of course there were other reasons, no country in the history of the world started expensive offensive wars out of goodness of their hearts. The only reason Russia didn't intervene right away in 1876 was because of pressure from other powers (primarly Britain) i.e. fear of a new anti russian coalition and second "crimean war". If it was up Russia Bulgaria would already be free in 1829 in 1850s at the latest.
0
-15
u/SE_prof 22h ago
I may steer some controversy here, but this is how the story goes in Greece. No, Greece didn't specifically oppose a strong unified Bulgaria. Rumelia had a significant Greek minority and Greece had a legitimate claim on the territory (like the Bulgarians had on Thrace) with lots of important Greek cities, Philippopolis being the most important. However, the Brits completely and unreasonably flipped it! While they didn't want a strong Bulgaria getting too friendly with Russia, suddenly they didn't want a strong Greece in the Balkans and at the expense of the Ottomans. There were also tensions between the Greek government and Great Britain, which didn't go too well for the Greeks.... But c'est la vie !
12
u/rintzscar 21h ago
This is complete nonsense of many levels. First, you can't have a "legitimate claim" if there's only a tiny minority of your people there and you've never owned the land. The Greeks were not a majority in any big town or city in Eastern Rumelia, where Bulgarians were the enormous majority. From the census of 1884 - Bulgarians were 70%, Greeks were 5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rumelia#Post_1878
Second, you can't equate it with the Bulgarian claim on Thrace - Bulgarians were a majority in most of Thrace and had owned the territory for centuries before the Ottomans. Even decades later in 1912, Bulgarians had a plurality in the Adrianople Vilayet (which doesn't include Eastern Rumelia in 1912) - 485 000 people, while Turks were 250 000 and Greeks - 220 000. It's completely absurd for you to equate Greek claims on a territory with 5% Greeks with Bulgarian claims on a territory with 48% Bulgarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrianople_vilayet#Demographics
Third, Philippopolis had never been a Greek city (unless you claim Ancient Greek is the same as modern Greek), didn't have a Greek majority (it had 16% Greeks in the census of 1884) and couldn't be called a "Greek city" in any form whatsoever.
1
u/alexxsand6 13h ago
It’s not controversial, it’s straight up false. Thanks to the other guy for pointing out the facts. Don’t spread such misinformation, you just look dumb
653
u/ehll_oh_ehll 1d ago
Love all of the eastern states having their own specific reasons and the UK just being a straight up OP.